At a glance
• A Norfolk driver’s test case, arguing he was unaware of the new Blackwall and Silvertown tunnel tolls, was rejected, with the tribunal ruling that ignorance isn’t a valid ground for appeal
• Adjudicator George Dodd confirmed motorists are responsible for knowing toll requirements, and that the warning signs are adequate
• TfL has issued more than 500,000 penalty notices since the tolls began, generating over £10m a month from tolls and fines
Motorists who live outside London have been warned that “ignorance” of the new Blackwall and Silvertown tunnel tolls will not enable them to avoid £180 penalty fines.
London mayor Sir Sadiq Khan introduced the tolls – of up to £4 per crossing – in April, as a way of generating income to repay the £2.2 billion cost of building the Silvertown tunnel.
This was the first time that drivers had to pay to use the Blackwall tunnel since it was first opened in 1897.
A test case brought by a Norfolk-based van driver – who claimed he was unaware of the tolls and was “blind” to road signs alerting him to the new charging regime – has been rejected by London Tribunals, the independent organisation that hears appeals from motorists against penalty charge notices issued in the capital.
Adjudicator George Dodd told the motorist, who asked the Standard not to publish his name, that he “cannot use ignorance of the scheme and its legal requirements as a ground of appeal”.
Mr Dodd, in a written judgement, said: “The fact that the publicity regarding the scheme may not have reached the appellant is not a ground of appeal given that TfL are not legally required to publicise the scheme.
“He had a responsibility to investigate and acquaint himself with all the charges, tolls and restrictions relevant to his route.”
The motorist, who received two £180 fines, said: “I do hope that my plight has drawn attention to the matter for other drivers.”
The Standard revealed in October that about 500,000 penalty tickets have been issued to motorists for failing to pay the tolls – of which more than half relate to vehicles registered outside London.
The former Londoner told the Standard that he had driven to Greenwich in his Ulez-compliant Volkswagen Transporter van on September 1 and had been directed by his satnav through the Silvertown tunnel, which links Canning Town with the Greenwich peninsula.
He returned home on September 2 via the Blackwall tunnel. Both tunnels are tolled at the same rate, with charges applying between 6am and 10pm.
He attended the hearing at London Tribunals in person but failed to convince Mr Dodd that TfL had failed to follow the rules in introducing the tolls.
The verdict in the case comes as new data reveals that the tunnels are generating more than £10 million a month in income – from tolls and fines - for TfL.
In August, a total of 104,643 penalty charge notices were issued to drivers who had failed to pay the Silvertown or Blackwall tunnel toll.
In the same month, 57,893 PCNs were paid – generating almost £5.4 million for TfL, in addition to the £4.9 million it raised that month from the tolls.
In his judgement, Mr Dodd told how the motorist said he was “unaware of the tunnel charging scheme given that any information/publicity associated with the scheme had not reached him”.
Mr Dodd added: “I note that he lives some distance from London. Furthermore, the appellant argued that the signage in respect of the tunnels was inadequate.
“He said that on entering and exiting the tunnel on both occasions he did not see any signage. He mentioned that he had used the Silvertown tunnel by bus and on exiting the tunnel had noticed that there was a sign with a red ‘C’, which he considered to be misleading because the red ‘C’ was associated with the congestion charge, rather than the tunnel charge.
“He also argued that the signage at the entrance to the Silvertown tunnel was positioned, such that it could not be seen until the last minute, by which time it was too late.
“The appellant also said he had been under the impression that, as his vehicle was Ulez compliant, it would have entitled him to an exemption in respect of the tunnel charge.”
He ruled: “The fact that the appellant’s vehicle is Ulez compliant did not exempt it from the tunnel charges.
“As regards signage, having regard to the fact that entry signs on or near the roads entering the tunnels have been authorised by the Secretary of State for Department of Transport, I am satisfied that the signage is compliant with the relevant authorisation and is sufficient to put motorists on notice of the existence of the tunnels and scheme.
“In any event, there is no reference to signage in any of the road user charging Scheme Orders. Accordingly, signage issues do not fall within any grounds of appeal and so adequacy of signage is not a relevant matter within the RUCA jurisdiction.
“Notwithstanding this, I am satisfied that the signage was sufficient to put the appellant on notice of the tunnels and the scheme.”
TfL had told the tribunal in advance that it would be willing to accept a £90 payment for each of the two PCNs, in the event that it won the case, as long as this was paid within 14 days.
This was accepted by the motorist, who paid a total of £180 to close the case.
TfL has been approached for comment.
